"According to the narrative history included with the results, the journey began around Ethiopia some 60,000 years ago with "Eurasian Adam," the African who is the common ancestor of every non-African person living today.
Some of Adam's descendants headed east along the coastline toward Saudi Arabia, India, Southeast Asia and Australia. Some headed west toward North Africa and the Mediterranean Sea."
Doug M Member # 7650
posted
But there is no such thing as a "Eurasian" adam, as adam was not born in Eurasia.
Heru-Behutet^*^ Member # 11484
posted
it's bollocks.
Sundjata Member # 13096
posted
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: But there is no such thing as a "Eurasian" adam, as adam was not born in Eurasia.
LOL, what a huge contradiction in such a short span. A Eurasian adam who came from Africa. Wow.. prmiddleeastern will post anything it seems. God bless him..
prmiddleeastern Member # 14038
posted
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: But there is no such thing as a "Eurasian" adam, as adam was not born in Eurasia.
I doesn't refer to were he originated, but it means he is the "Adam" of Eurasian people.
prmiddleeastern Member # 14038
posted
Eurasian Adam as the ancestor of Eurasian people, that is why he is the "Eurasian Adam", not that he is Eurasian but the ancestor of Eurasians.
Sundjata Member # 13096
posted
quote:Originally posted by prmiddleeastern:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: But there is no such thing as a "Eurasian" adam, as adam was not born in Eurasia.
I doesn't refer to were he originated
Yes it does. It says he comes from Ethiopia... Of course "adam" is symbolic for early anatomically modern humans, of which the African population in Ethiopia embodied.
quote:Originally posted by prmiddleeastern: Eurasian Adam as the ancestor of Eurasian people, that is why he is the "Eurasian Adam", not that he is Eurasian but the ancestor of Eurasians.
I guess you can put it that way..
prmiddleeastern Member # 14038
posted
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata:
quote:Originally posted by prmiddleeastern:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: But there is no such thing as a "Eurasian" adam, as adam was not born in Eurasia.
I doesn't refer to were he originated
quote:Yes it does. It says he comes from Ethiopia... Of course "adam" is symbolic for early anatomically modern humans, of which the African population in Ethiopia embodied.
So do you believe Ethiopia in in Eurasia?
quote:Originally posted by prmiddleeastern: Eurasian Adam as the ancestor of Eurasian people, that is why he is the "Eurasian Adam", not that he is Eurasian but the ancestor of Eurasians.
I guess you can put it that way..
It is because it is that way, at least if you don't consider Ethiopia part of Eurasia.
alTakruri Member # 10195
posted
Eurasian Adam should refer to the man who first had the mutation that Eurasian males have exclusive to mutations that first appeared in Africa.
M89 would be the marker from the Eurasian Adam.
Africa would have two or three or more Adams: * A--M91 __________________________________________(pre-Adam ???) * B--SRY1083.1 M42 M94 M139 M60 M181 _______________(Adam 1a ???) * C--SRY1083.1 M42 M94 M139 M168 P9 RPS4Y711 M216 ___(Adam 1b1 ???) * DE-SRY1083.1 M42 M94 M139 M168 P9 YAP M145 M203 ___(Adam 1b2 ???)
I invite (in alphabet order) theBass, Evergreen, MysterySolver, Rasol, to adjust and correct me if and where I may have erred.
prmiddleeastern Member # 14038
posted
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Eurasian Adam is a reference to the man who first had the mutation that Eurasian males have exclusive to mutations that first appeared in Africa.
Exactly, the ancestor of Eurasian, the Eurasian Adam, the Adam of Eurasians.
alTakruri Member # 10195
posted
Yes, your lead post, though maybe a bit fuzzy, did try to define the term "... "Eurasian Adam," the African who is the common ancestor of every non-African person living today."
I applaud and encourage your recent efforts to attain to academics in your posts and expect to see great contributions from you in the future should you stay on track.
quote:Originally posted by prmiddleeastern:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Eurasian Adam is a reference to the man who first had the mutation that Eurasian males have exclusive to mutations that first appeared in Africa.
Exactly, the ancestor of Eurasian, the Eurasian Adam, the Adam of Eurasians.
prmiddleeastern Member # 14038
posted
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Yes, your lead post, though maybe a bit fuzzy, did try to define the term "... "Eurasian Adam," the African who is the common ancestor of every non-African person living today."
I applaud and encourage your recent efforts to attain to academics in your posts and expect to see great contributions from you in the future should you stay on track.
quote:Originally posted by prmiddleeastern:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Eurasian Adam is a reference to the man who first had the mutation that Eurasian males have exclusive to mutations that first appeared in Africa.
Exactly, the ancestor of Eurasian, the Eurasian Adam, the Adam of Eurasians.
it is commom sense, they refer to Eurasian Adam as the Adam of Eurasian, the ancestor of non-African peoples who now inhabit Asia and Europe.
Ausarian. Member # 14778
posted
My take on that which is being discussed, is this:
"Adam" appears to simply be nothing more than a genetic code word for the oldest attestable "common recent ancestors" of Africans and non-Africans respectively. The oldest attestable "common" male ancestor of *contemporary* African populations is obviously the ancestor of every male worldwide. This common ancestor would be the "Adam" of Africans, and by association, technically the "Adam" of all contemporary human males. However, a "Eurasian adam" would obviously be a genetic code word for the "oldest" attestable common recent ancestor of non-African male populations, who would obviously not be an "Adam" to African populations. If this is the context in which it is used, then I take no issue with its use.
Though M89 (Hg F) is probably one of the oldest male lineages in the non-African male gene pool, it is not necessarily the only one. There is C-M130, which is just as old, if not older. Also, it is not clear that M89 arose in Eurasia. Thus, the most recent common ancestor of these divergent lineages, ought to be more appropriately designated as the "Eurasian Adam", and this ancestor may well essentially be an African. Even if one were to assume that this common recent ancestor was born somewhere in "Eurasia" as part of a second, third or a few more generation thereof population, and the said ancestor's MRCA was that of African-provenance, then the said individual would still be counted as an African.
Recently, the common recent ancestor of both M89 and M130 was located in African samples by P. Underhill et al., if memory serves me correctly.
Given all this, I see no problem in designating the "oldest attestable" common recent ancestor of "non-African" male populations, who was African, as the "adam" of Eurasian and Eurasian-derived populations.
rasol Member # 4592
posted
^ I do have a problem with the dissembling application of "Adam", which essentially means 1st, to a supposed common ancestor of non African males.
The use of the term Adam implies 1st man - which is wrong, as we are not discussing the 1st man.
The use of the term EurAsian is also incorrect, as we are discussing and Ethiopian!
The lineage in question is M168.
And it is not only African in origin, but is the most common lineage line - [giving birth to clade E] in Africa.
Also it is lineage of Australians, and Native Americans....who are also *not* EurAsians.
Eurasia has nothing to do with anything here, except that some modern Eurasians are left with the *sorepoint* of the recent African origins of all mankind, which contracts their racial myths, which they then try to keep alive thru dissembly.
The term is just as much a ridiculous and crass bit of phony chauvinism as if you called him the British Adam, notwithstanding that he was neither Brtish nor the 1st man, nor the 1st British man, nor a common anscestor particular to British.
If you think carefully about this terminological dishonesty, they have taken and Ethiopian lineage, and claimed it to be Eurasian, by sheer force of audacious rhetoric.
Terminology is a form of warfare. A false terminology sustains a false idea.
Ausarian. Member # 14778
posted
quote:rasol writes:
^ I do have a problem with the dissembling application of "Adam", which essentially means 1st, to a supposed common ancestor of non African males.
I don't, for the reasons I've stated.
akoben08 Member # 15244
posted
quote: A false terminology sustains a false idea.
...you are one to talk, you call white jews "semites", even when you can't prove it. LOL
rasol Member # 4592
posted
re:
quote:you are one to talk, you call white jews "semites",
Actually, no one talks obsessively about 'white jews' except you.
This is because you are and Arab loser whose manhood has apparently been 'taken', by Jews, who have utterly demoralised you.
So much do they dominate your world that you see them everywhere, and can only talk about them, and nothing else.
Boo, a jew!
The 'jew' own you!
I'd say you need to see a psychiatrist, but with your luck....you'd probably end up seeing a 'jew'. lol.
Or maybe no one took your manhood, but rather there was never anything to take.
If I were and Arab, I would be ashamed of you.
But, I'm not, and I don't care, so I just *laugh at you*, and Arab castrate...forever crying [in soprano] about the white jews who stole his little balls
Keep crying loser.
Pray for Allah to grow you a new pair. Tell Allah that if not for the evil white jew, you would be a real man. [not]
But then, he's probably more disgusted with you than I am.
akoben08 Member # 15244
posted
quote:Originally posted by rasol: re:
quote:you are one to talk, you call white jews "semites",
Actually, no one talks obsessively about 'white jews' except you.
This is because you are and Arab loser whose manhood has apparently been 'taken', by Jews, who have utterly demoralised you.
So much do they dominate your world that you see them everywhere, and can only talk about them, and nothing else.
Boo, a jew!
The 'jew' own you!
I'd say you need to see a psychiatrist, but with your luck....you'd probably end up seeing a 'jew'. lol.
Or maybe no one took your manhood, but rather there was never anything to take.
If I were and Arab, I would be ashamed of you.
But, I'm not, and I don't care, so I just *laugh at you*, and Arab castrate...forever crying [in soprano] about the white jews who stole his little balls
Keep crying loser.
Pray for Allah to grow you a new pair. Tell Allah that if not for the evil white jew, you would be a real man. [not]
But then, he's probably more disgusted with you than I am.
Oh please rasolowitz, your little diversion tactics are getting too predictable now. Projecting your deranged, confused state onto me won't distract attention from the fact that you are a walking/trolling contradiction.Marc already diagnosed your problem. So next time please spear us your lecture about "false terminology" sustaining false ideas....
Wolofi Member # 14892
posted
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ I do have a problem with the dissembling application of "Adam", which essentially means 1st, to a supposed common ancestor of non African males.
The use of the term Adam implies 1st man - which is wrong, as we are not discussing the 1st man.
The use of the term EurAsian is also incorrect, as we are discussing and Ethiopian!
The lineage in question is M168.
And it is not only African in origin, but is the most common lineage line - [giving birth to clade E] in Africa.
Also it is lineage of Australians, and Native Americans....who are also *not* EurAsians.
Eurasia has nothing to do with anything here, except that some modern Eurasians are left with the *sorepoint* of the recent African origins of all mankind, which contracts their racial myths, which they then try to keep alive thru dissembly.
The term is just as much a ridiculous and crass bit of phony chauvinism as if you called him the British Adam, notwithstanding that he was neither Brtish nor the 1st man, nor the 1st British man, nor a common anscestor particular to British.
If you think carefully about this terminological dishonesty, they have taken and Ethiopian lineage, and claimed it to be Eurasian, by sheer force of audacious rhetoric.
Terminology is a form of warfare. A false terminology sustains a false idea.
LOL Damn this guy is good!
I have always had a problem with scientists using a Biblical term anyway. Creationists even try to use the whole X and Y chromosome Adam and Eve by wrongly inferring that humans descend from only two people rather than populations.
Ausārian Member # 14778
posted
Yes; to the extent there is any controversy around the application of "Adam", then it would be that it advertently or inadvertently merges a theological concept with science. An example of the last time that happened, we ended up having the disastrous use of the "Hamitic concept". Like state governance, science should divorce itself from religion at any cost. Religion should best be left at the private arena.
rasol Member # 4592
posted
^ I agree. The issue isn't only that the term Adam is misapplied.
It's important to keep in mind that Eurocentrists have always wanted the origin of man to be in Europe - literally Europe as center.
The biggest fraud in the history of anthropology - "The Piltdown Man", came in direct response to the early discoveries of mans African origin.
[a european 'scholar' created a fake european skeletan 'older' than any found in africa].
This describes the psychotic mentality of Eurocentrism.
The irrational wishful thinkings of East Africa is being originally 'caucasian', or East Africa being a "Eurasian cradle", are simply subtler versions of Piltdown Man.
It reflects a desparate need to uphold and illusion of Euro-self-importance, when faced with and unrelenting torrent of facts to the contrary.
posted 
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)